Michael Moore at Oscars Awards = ?

This is a discussion on Michael Moore at Oscars Awards = ? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; first to let u know that i hate the oscars after last night.....
second of all, i have great respect ...

second of all, i have great respect for the guy, for what he does and shows. If he didn't win the award over some ducks flying, i would've slapped the ppl in charge of deciding who gets the award. yes, it was probably not a good idea to bring politics on a show like that, but i don;t have too much trouble with it because, as i stated b4, i hate the oscars.....i don;t need a flipping oscar to tell me lotr is a good movie....although those idiots tend to disagree..i mean a frigging musical..WHATTHE HELL IS THAT!!!.(i'll get back to my ORIGINAL thoughts now) but it was also wrong for the audience to boo him and at his opinion...because most, if not all, of the people clearly did not recognize his talent and what he was trying to say at that moment and thought he was just another idiot blaffing. and for people who says people who protest should stop because it has already began, you'r wrong. It's called standing up for what you believe in

Bowling for Columbine, as said before in this thread, was not about the tragedy... it was mentioned in the movie and they spent some time on it, but it was more about gun control than anything else. I thought it was good.

While I respect Michael Moore and his thoughts, I can't believe he did what he did, as you all said. I didn't see it, but if he did say that, he lost some of my respect. That's ludicrous.

I'm seriously sick of people protesting this thing now. We're in it. We can't just back out of it now. And what in the hell do you think this is doing to the troops? We're over here shouting about how this is a bad war and we're just in it for petroleum. Guess what... that makes the troops feel like about 2 cents... how about supporting them in their cause!? (whether you think it's bad or not)

The war isn't the troops' "cause." Protesting the war isn't the same
as protesting the troops. The troops are one of the main reasons
for the protests; nobody wants them to die. Nobody should
protest the troops -- and nobody does. They protest the people
that send them over for a reason they don't think is necessary.
There's nothing bad about that at all.

And the polls don't matter. This country is full of flip-flopping twits
that change their opinions on the fly. The day before war started,
nobody wanted it; the day after it started, everybody wanted it.
Nobody stands by their convictions. They're too afraid of being
called "un american". All cowards.

I've never watched the Oscars... I read that Gangs of New York
didn't win anything. That's crap.

Originally posted by Commander and for people who says people who protest should stop because it has already began, you'r wrong. It's called standing up for what you believe in

I'm not necessarily saying that people should stop protesting. I am saying that more support for the troops should be there.

Also, some protestors need to have a reality check, such as the protestors that protest the war against oil, i.e. the "No blood for oil" people. This war isn't about oil, it's about weapons and a corrupt leader that is killing his own people.

>>This war isn't about oil, it's about weapons and a corrupt leader that is killing his own people.

i agree.. we've already said that the oil revenue will be used to rebuild the country FOR the Iraqi people....but like i said earlier, for some people there is always some conspiracy theory.

i dont think people get it, were trying to help the iraqi's overthrow their corrupt tyrant of a leader, (hate to say this but...) the FRENCH, yes, you heard me THE FRENCH helped us do the same thing during the revolutionary war, they didnt do it all for us but they did help us and were doing the same for iraq...how come no one else makes this connection?

>>but like i said earlier, for some people there is always some conspiracy theory.

Yes. Everything we hear inthe media is correct, they would never lead us astray for thier own purposes.

Like the 'Babies thrown from the Incubators by Iraqis' we heard in 1990.

"In October, 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, appeared in Washington before the House of Representatives' Human Rights Caucus. She testified that Iraqi soldiers who had invaded Kuwait on August 2nd tore hundreds of babies from hospital incubators and killed them."

"Bush snr, Republicans and pro-war Democrats used Nayirah's tale to hammer their fellow politicians into line behind Bush's war in the Persian Gulf."

Pity it was all proven a lie (Kuwait did not HAVE hundreds of incubators).

PR firm Hill & Knowlton was paid US$12 million to drum up support for Desert Storm. They used the daughter of the Kuwait embassidor to US (who was not even in Kuwait at the time).

yeah, youre right, its not like any of the bad things saddam and the republican guard have done REALLY happend of course, we shouldnt believe the media, youre right, lets just all sit in caves...if you believe everything you read, watch, listen to then YOURE the idiot not lester holt, YOU my friend, of course you want to believe everything but ya know, when i turn to univision and they show me one thing and cnn shows me something else i kinda have to put my own jigsaw puzzle together

Does anybody really think Bush is truly interested in securing Iraq's
economic future -- for Iraq's own benefit? I doubt it. Bush doesn't
seem like the caring type. The title "Operation Iraqi Freedom" just
seems like propaganda to me. Think about it... Why wasn't it untilafter the bombing started that they named their campaign? Why
was the liberation of the Iraqi People never a big issue during
Bush's attempts to rally support for a war against Iraq? All we
heard about was "Weapons of Mass Destruction." I mean, if
weapons were a real issue, you'd think that he'd be more concerned
with North Korea (they're the ones developing Nukes, right?) than
Iraq.

I'm not saying oil is a reason for this war, but I also don't believe
that Bush is a deeply compassionate person that truly cares for
the Iraqi People. I don't think it's crazy to believe that oil may
at least be a small part of Bush's agenda. If the Iraqi People are
liberated -- that may just be a fortunate side-effect of Bush's real
plan. Then again, I may be wrong. I just have a hard time believing
anything from anybody.

ABC aired Good Will Hunting last Saturday... There's a quote that
sums up why people may believe that oil may be a part of this
war...

Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in
the first place was so that we could install a government that
would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies
used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy
at two-fifty a gallon. They're taking their sweet time bringing the oil back...

And yes, it's just a movie. So what? Still makes you wonder.

As far as this war goes, I'm skeptical about information that
comes directly from the Iraqi Government, the US Government, or
Fox News Channel...

i also dont think people realize how much the OUR government controls the flow of oil in this country, if anybody here lives in a port city you might have seen this durng the 1970's or during other oil price hikes/dry ups.... they make the tankers sit out about a mile off shore for days on end? if the boat is here why not let it come in, its kinda obvious the government ...i mean, police state, is controlling EVERYTHING

Yes. Of course he does. And so does the U.S. military, the
petroleum companies, the U.S. Senate, Congress, and the
American citizen, both pro and most anti-war.

Why?

Simple. World stability. In a world where the U.S. is already the unquestioned dominant force, the best environment to ensure
a continuation of that dominance is world stability--NOT war.
A stabilized Iraq ensures U.S. pre-eminence. A stabilized
middle east maintains our predominance. With peace comes
economic recovery. That's why you saw the Dow Jones averages
leap forward during the first stages of the war--when everything
pointed to a quick and easy victory by the Coalition. But with
Monday came the rude awakening of what is going to happen if
this war drags out a la Vietnam. The bad news of Sundays events
drove the Dow to a loss of over 300 points, the biggest one-day
drop in the market in six years.

That's the message this war, as all wars do, is sending us--win
and you're in; lose, or even suffer small setbacks and you will
pay a dear economic price. Everyone seems quick to point out
that war is good for an economy, and this is true enough--but
only if you win the war.

So if the coalition wins this war, the U.S. will spend billions trying
to build a government amenable to the different factions at work
in Iraq, which we all should know are many. Rebuilding this
country after hostilities end will be just as daunting a task, probably more so, than simply winning a military victory.
However, to lose this war...how much do you think that would
cost the U.S., and preipherally down the line---Great Britain,
Australia, and whatever other nations actively comprised the
Allies, or Coalition, if you will?